From my understanding it's a UN convention to put together a 'bill of rights' for children that may ultimately usurp some of the rights parents have to governance of their children. It's also my understanding that Secretary Clinton is a big sponsor/proponent of the bill.

Here's a list of concerns I've found (bolding added by me):

Quote

It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.

Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.

Children of other nations would not be impacted or helped in any direct way by our ratification.

The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI.

The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation. Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.

The courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.

Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.

A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.

Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.

Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.

And some practical impacts:

Quote

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.

A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.

Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

Thoughts?

UPDATED: 10/11/12

Quote

Here is what we say in "Black Helicopters" that Obama, Hillary, and the UN are planning for us:A “Robin Hood” tax on financial transactions. Every time you buy or sell a stock or a bond or exchange money while travelling, you’d be hit with a financial transactions tax (a percentage of your transaction) that would go to the UN.A global tobacco tax with the funds to flow to the World Health Organization (WHO).A UN-imposed tax on billionaires all over the world. And don’t delude yourself for a moment that it is only the 1600 current billionaires who will be hit. Once the precedent of a UN tax on US citizens is approved, it will gradually grow downwards to cover more and more Americans. Again the funds will go to the UN.Under the Law of the Sea Treaty – up for Senate ratification in December of the lame duck session – offshore oil and gas wells would have to pay a proportion of their revenues to the International Seabed Authority, a UN-sponsored organization, which would distribute the loot to the third world.A carbon tax on all U.S. or other foreign commercial or passenger aircraft flying to Europe. Nominally to fight climate change, these revenues would also go to the third world.A mandatory assessment to be imposed on the U.S. to compensate third world nations for the costs of reducing their carbon output.These taxes are, of course, only the first steps. Once the principle is established of UN taxation of American citizens, the sky is the limit.Is there any organizations less worthy of our trust to spend our money wisely than the United Nations? Beset by almost constant scandal, bereft of any in-house oversight or even audit, the UN is one of the most corrupt of all international organizations. In "Black Helicopters," we document how pervasive this corruption really is.

You fellows seem to know the intricacies of the constitution, so I wondered about the supremacy clause and whatnot.

There is nothing to discuss unless you show where you got this list from. We need to know something about how the list was put together. As it stands right now, there is not one single thing in the impacts list that I could possibly agree with.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention and opened it for signature on 20 November 1989 (the 30th anniversary of its Declaration of the Rights of the Child).[5] It came into force on 2 September 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations. As of December 2008, 193 countries have ratified it,[1] including every member of the United Nations except the United States and Somalia.

So two things:

1) This has been around a long time.

2) Our country and Somalia? Awesome. I'm sure all the other 193 countries are in complete anarchy right now for participating in this.

Just like all other UN Convention, it has no power to force countries (even those that "ratified it") to actually enforce it.

Every member of UN except US and Somalia ratified it but we still have child labor in Indonesia. Some bad parents still seriously abuse their children. Children under 12 are still going to jail for minor gambling. It is still much easier to find underage prostitutes than adult ones in the local nightlife scene.

Just like all other UN Convention, it has no power to force countries (even those that "ratified it") to actually enforce it.

Every member of UN except US and Somalia ratified it but we still have child labor in Indonesia. Some bad parents still seriously abuse their children. Children under 12 are still going to jail for minor gambling. It is still much easier to find underage prostitutes than adult ones in the local nightlife scene.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention and opened it for signature on 20 November 1989 (the 30th anniversary of its Declaration of the Rights of the Child).[5] It came into force on 2 September 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations. As of December 2008, 193 countries have ratified it,[1] including every member of the United Nations except the United States and Somalia.

So two things:

1) This has been around a long time.

2) Our country and Somalia? Awesome. I'm sure all the other 193 countries are in complete anarchy right now for participating in this.

I am also sure those 193 countries are doing everything called out for in the agreement.

Any treaties signed still have to be ratified by the Senate. If we didn't ratify the Kyoto protocols, do you really think the Senate is going to ratify anything that hands over power over our citizens to an international organization? Remember, treaty ratification requires 2/3rds consent, not just a majority, so the idea that ther (current) 53 member majority is going to be able to sell us down the river is ludicrous and deliberate fear-mongering.

With regard to the wedding ring, which is worn on the occasion of marriage, this is not one of the customs of the Muslims. If it is believed that it generates love between the spouses, and that taking it off and not wearing it will have an effect on the marital relationship, then this is regarded as a form of shirk and is a kind of jaahili belief. Based on the above, it is not permissible to wear a wedding ring under any circumstances.